DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 7/09/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5 and 7-18; canceled claims 6 and 19; and added claim 20. Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
Regarding the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 7/09/2026 have been fully considered.
First, the amendment of “a control section” to “a controller” obviates the associated § 112(f) interpretation.
Accordingly, the associated § 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
However, the amendment of “an imaging section” to “an imager” does not obviate the associated § 112(f) interpretation. Namely, “imager” is a non-structural generic placeholder. As “imager” is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, interpretation under § 112(f) is appropriate.
Therefore, the associated claim interpretation under § 112(f) is maintained.
Regarding the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 7/09/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant focuses on the following claim limitation: “the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager in accordance with a state of the side mirror housing and controls the imaging direction of the imager as to maintain an imaging direction when the side mirror is unfolded.” Applicant submits that Ikegami discloses an opposite teaching – specifically, that Ikegami discloses changing the camera viewing area through side-mirror rotation to track a detected object. In contrast, Applicant argues that claim 1 recites control of an imaging direction to maintain an imaging direction associated with the unfolded side-mirror state; that is, the controller maintains the imaging direction notwithstanding changes in side-mirror state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument hinges on a narrower interpretation than what the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim puts forth. In contrast to Applicant’s assertion, claim 1 does not put forth a control to maintain an imaging state between a folded state and an unfolded state. Rather, the claim lays out that when a side mirror housing is unfolded, an imaging direction is maintained in accordance with the state of the side mirror housing. In this regard, Imaseki reads on the claim limitation at issue:
As shown in Figure 2(b), the right-side camera 106 is adjusted so that its optical axis is approximately oriented in the X-axis direction when the right-side mirror 108 is open, in order to image the area around the right side of the vehicle 100. (¶ 14)
The imaging range of the right-side camera 106 is imaging range A when it is open and imaging range B when it is retracted, and the imaging range can be changed by rotating the right-side mirror 108. (¶ 15)
The control unit 204 controls the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115, which are composed of a motor and gears, to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to predetermined positions. (¶ 16)
Based on the input rotation position data, the control unit 204 controls the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115, which are composed of a motor and gears, to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to predetermined positions. (¶ 26)
Summarizing, Imaseki discloses a closed-loop control which senses an unfolded state and maintains an imaging direction in accordance with that state. Therefore, Imaseki’s disclosure arrives at the BRI of the claim limitation at issue.
Of note, claim 7 appears to set forth Applicant’s claim interpretation; namely: “wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager such that the imaging direction when the side mirror housing is unfolded is to be maintained when the side mirror housing is folded.” If claim 1 were to require Applicant’s interpretation, then claim 7 would be rendered superfluous. What is the case is that claim 7 lays out a narrower scope than what claim 1 provides. And, critically, the Office Action addressed claim 7 through Kim; hence, Applicant’s construction is covered by the cited prior art.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an imager … configured to generate image data” in claims 1, 18 and 20 (with claims 2-5, 7-17 dependent on claim 1).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
imager: “plurality of cameras such as the front camera, the rear camera, the left camera, and the right camera.” (PGPUB ¶ 144)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (JP2014170357A; “Ikegami”) in view of Mukasa et al. (US20200139931A1; “Mukasa”).
As to independent claim 1, Ikegami discloses an in-vehicle monitoring apparatus comprising:
an imager provided in a vehicle including a side mirror housing and configured to generate image data in accordance with imaging (“The vehicle 100 is equipped with a front camera 104 that captures images of the area in front of the vehicle 100, a rear camera 105 that captures images of the area behind the vehicle 100, a right-side camera 106 that captures images of the area to the right, and a left-side camera 107 that captures images of the area to the left.” ¶ 11); and
a controller configured to control an imaging operation and an imaging direction of the imager (“The imaging range of the right-side camera 106 is imaging range A when it is open and imaging range B when it is retracted, and the imaging range can be changed by rotating the right-side mirror 108.” ¶ 15; see also ¶ 16. “[T]he control unit 204 controls the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115, which are composed of a motor and gears, to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to predetermined positions.” ¶ 26. “In step S402, the control unit 204 activates the front camera 104, rear camera 105, right camera 106, and left camera 107 to input captured images and save them to the storage unit 203.” ¶ 30.),
wherein the controller
controls the imaging direction of the imager in accordance with a state of the side mirror housing (“The imaging range of the right-side camera 106 is imaging range A when it is open and imaging range B when it is retracted, and the imaging range can be changed by rotating the right-side mirror 108.” ¶ 15; see also ¶ 16. The control unit 204 controls the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115, which are composed of a motor and gears, to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to predetermined positions.” ¶ 26.),
controls the imaging direction of the imager so as to maintain an imaging direction when the side mirror housing is unfolded, in accordance with the state of the side mirror housing (“As shown in Figure 2(b), the right-side camera 106 is adjusted so that its optical axis is approximately oriented in the X-axis direction when the right-side mirror 108 is open, in order to image the area around the right side of the vehicle 100.” ¶ 14. “The imaging range of the right-side camera 106 is imaging range A when it is open and imaging range B when it is retracted, and the imaging range can be changed by rotating the right-side mirror 108.” ¶ 15. “The left-side mirror 109 can also be rotated around its pivot axis between the open and retracted states, thereby similarly changing the imaging range of the left-side camera 107.” ¶ 16. “Based on the input rotation position data, the control unit 204 controls the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115, which are composed of a motor and gears, to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to predetermined positions.” ¶ 26. ), and
sets the imaging operation of the imager to a first power consumption mode (“If the object cannot be detected or identified from the images captured by any camera (No in step S410), the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115 are controlled to return the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to their retracted positions, and each camera returns to standby mode to save power (step S411).” ¶ 37.), and
the imager operates such that, when a motion of a surrounding object has been detected, the imaging operation is to be set to a second power consumption mode, the second power consumption mode taking higher power consumption than the first power consumption mode (“Next, in step S406, the control unit 204 detects an abnormality when sensors 117a to 117d detect the approach of an object. If an abnormality is detected (Yes in step S406), the right side mirror rotating part 114 and the left side mirror rotating part 115 are controlled to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to the open position (step S407).” ¶ 36. “In step S408, if each camera is in standby mode, it is activated to acquire captured images.” ¶ 37.).
Ikegami fails to explicitly disclose:
sets the imaging operation of the imager to a first power consumption mode in accordance with an ignition turn-off determination of the vehicle, and
the imager operates such that, when a motion of a surrounding object has been detected based on first image data generated in the first power consumption mode, the imaging operation is to be set to a second power consumption mode, the second power consumption mode taking higher power consumption than the first power consumption mode.
Nevertheless, Mukasa teaches:
setting an imaging operation of an imager to a first power consumption mode in accordance with an ignition turn-off determination of the vehicle (“First, the vehicle 9 stops the engine on the basis of an operation of the user U (step S211).” ¶ 194. “The operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M1 (step S212). This allows the imaging unit 21 to start acquiring the low-resolution image PIC1. Then, the moving object detection section 31 performs moving object detection on the basis of the low-resolution image PIC1 (step S213).” ¶ 195.), and
the imager operates such that, when a motion of a surrounding object has been detected based on first image data generated in the first power consumption mode, the imaging operation is to be set to a second power consumption mode, the second power consumption mode taking higher power consumption than the first power consumption mode (“The operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M1 (step S212). This allows the imaging unit 21 to start acquiring the low-resolution image PIC1. Then, the moving object detection section 31 performs moving object detection on the basis of the low-resolution image PIC1 (step S213).” ¶ 195. “In a case where a moving object is detected in step S214 (“Y” in step S214), the operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M2 (step S215). This allows the imaging unit 21 to acquire the high-resolution image PIC2.” ¶ 197. See also ¶ 90 which discusses how the modes M1 and M2 are tied to lower and higher power consumption, respectively.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ikegami to include the features of: setting an imaging operation of the imager to a first power consumption mode in accordance with an ignition turn-off determination of the vehicle; and the imager operates such that, when a motion of a surrounding object has been detected based on first image data generated in the first power consumption mode, the imaging operation is to be set to a second power consumption mode, the second power consumption mode taking higher power consumption than the first power consumption mode, as taught by Mukasa, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful “to reduce power consumption” while also performing effective monitoring of a vehicle’s surroundings. (See Mukasa, ¶ 90.)
Independent claims 18 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 10, Ikegami discloses: wherein the controller in a case where a target object has been detected based on image data generated by the imager, acquires image data captured in a direction of the target object (“Next, in step S406, the control unit 204 detects an abnormality when sensors 117a to 117d detect the approach of an object. If an abnormality is detected (Yes in step S406), the right side mirror rotating part 114 and the left side mirror rotating part 115 are controlled to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to the open position (step S407).” ¶ 36. “In step S408, if each camera is in standby mode, it is activated to acquire captured images. The control unit 204 then processes the acquired images to detect a person moving as a predetermined object and identifies the camera that is capturing the object (step S409).” ¶ 37.).
As to claim 13, Ikegami fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller
when the target object has been detected based on the first image data, the first image data being generated in the first power consumption mode by the imager, acquires image data captured in the direction of the target object and having a resolution higher than the resolution of the first image data.
Nevertheless, Mukasa teaches: when the target object has been detected based on the first image data, the first image data being generated in the first power consumption mode by the imager, acquire image data captured in the direction of the target object and having a resolution higher than the resolution of the first image data (“The operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M1 (step S212). This allows the imaging unit 21 to start acquiring the low-resolution image PIC1. Then, the moving object detection section 31 performs moving object detection on the basis of the low-resolution image PIC1 (step S213).” ¶ 195. “In a case where a moving object is detected in step S214 (“Y” in step S214), the operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M2 (step S215). This allows the imaging unit 21 to acquire the high-resolution image PIC2.” ¶ 197. See also ¶ 90 which discusses how the modes M1 and M2 are tied to lower and higher power consumption, respectively.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ikegami to include the feature of: when the target object has been detected based on the first image data, the first image data being generated in the first power consumption mode by the imager, acquire image data captured in the direction of the target object and having a resolution higher than the resolution of the first image data, as taught by Mukasa, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful “to reduce power consumption” while also performing effective monitoring of a vehicle’s surroundings. (See Mukasa, ¶ 90.)
As to claim 14, Ikegami fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the imager and the controller are integrally formed.
Nevertheless, Mukasa teaches: wherein the imager and the controller are integrally formed (“FIG. 6 illustrates a configuration example of the imaging apparatus 20A mounted on the vehicle 8A. The imaging apparatus 20A includes a control unit 30A.” ¶ 99 and FIG. 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ikegami to include the feature of: wherein the imager and the controller are integrally formed, as taught by Mukasa, because either integrally or separately arranging electronic modules is a well-known design tradeoff in embedded systems and automotive electronics. Integrally forming the imager and the controller would be useful for design considerations and manufacturing ease.
As to claim 15, Ikegami discloses: wherein the imager and the controller are separately formed (“Vehicle 100 is equipped with a front camera 104 that captures images of the area in front of the vehicle 100, a rear camera 105 that captures images of the area behind the vehicle 100, a right-side camera 106 that captures images of the area to the right, and a left-side camera 107 that captures images of the area to the left.” ¶ 19. “control unit 204” - ¶ 24. FIG. 3 illustrates that the foregoing elements are separate.).
As to claim 16, Ikegami discloses: wherein the controller is included in a configuration of a processing section that executes processing in a subsequent stage (“The control unit 204 determines whether the object is within the shooting range of the right camera 106 by processing the captured image. ¶ 44).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Ye et al. (US20240236485A9; “Ye”)
As to claim 2, Ikegami fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first power consumption mode is a mode of generating the first image data having a resolution lower than the resolution of the second image data.
Nevertheless, Mukasa teaches: the first power consumption mode is a mode of generating the first image data having a resolution lower than the resolution of the second image data (“First, the vehicle 9 stops the engine on the basis of an operation of the user U (step S211).” ¶ 194. “[T]he operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M1 (step S212). This allows the imaging unit 21 to start acquiring the low-resolution image PIC1. Then, the moving object detection section 31 performs moving object detection on the basis of the low-resolution image PIC1 (step S213).” ¶ 195. “In a case where a moving object is detected in step S214 (“Y” in step S214), the operation mode setting section 33 sets the operation mode M of the imaging unit 21 to the operation mode M2 (step S215). This allows the imaging unit 21 to acquire the high-resolution image PIC2.” ¶ 197.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ikegami to include the feature of: the first power consumption mode is a mode of generating the first image data having a resolution lower than the resolution of the second image data, as taught by Mukasa, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to reduce power consumption” while also performing effective monitoring of a vehicle’s surroundings. (See Mukasa, ¶ 90.)
The combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second power consumption mode is a mode of generating second image data having a resolution lower than a maximum resolution of the image data generated by the imager.
Nevertheless, Ye teaches: a second power consumption mode which is a mode of generating second image data having a resolution lower than a maximum resolution of the image data generated by the imager (“The operation modes of the image sensor include a first operation mode, a second operation mode, and a third operation mode, the second operation mode has lower power consumption than that of the first operation mode, the third operation mode has lower power consumption than that of the second operation mode … The first operation mode may also be referred to as a normal operation mode or a normal mode, and resolution of an image generated in the first operation mode is first image resolution. The second operation mode may also be referred to as a lower power mode, and resolution of an image generated in the second operation mode is second image resolution. The third operation mode may also be referred to as an ultra-low power mode, and resolution of an image generated in the third operation mode is third image resolution. The first image resolution>the second image resolution>the third image resolution.” ¶ 15.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa to include the feature of: a second power consumption mode which is a mode of generating second image data having a resolution lower than a maximum resolution of the image data generated by the imager, as taught by Ye, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing further modality in terms of providing a second power consumption mode which provides a “medium” resolution, thereby providing relatively clear images while avoiding maximum power consumption.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Burns et al. (US20230077868A1; “Burns”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: setting an imaging operation of the imager to a third power consumption mode having higher power consumption than a second power consumption mode in a case where an object having a possibility of harming a human or the vehicle has been detected based on a second image data generated in the second power consumption mode by the imager.
Nevertheless, Burns teaches: setting an imaging operation of the imager to a third power consumption mode having higher power consumption than a second power consumption mode in a case where an object having a possibility of harming a human or the vehicle has been detected based on a second image data generated in the second power consumption mode by the imager (“FIG. 9 shows a flowchart of an illustrative process for optimizing the power supply while operating in a guard mode … The processing circuitry 102 may monitor the vehicle power state to monitor the surrounding environment of the vehicle 101. … At 904, the system starts at a vehicle sleep mode. For example, when there are no intruders and no impending collisions. In this mode, the vehicle preserves battery power. At 902, in response to an intruder approaching the vehicle or an impending collision is identified, the system switches to the vehicle standby mode … The guard mode starts in a disengaged mode at 906, and in response to a request or automatically based on locking the vehicle, the vehicle guard mode is engaged to step 908. In 908, the guard mode is engaged and monitoring the surrounding environment. When the presence of an object, such as an intruder, is detected within a first deterrence threshold 324 (e.g., large radius), then at 910, the system begins to record the vehicle’s surrounding environment … Continuing to 912, when the presence of an object, such as an intruder, is detected within a second deterrence threshold 322 (e.g., small radius), then at 912, the system begins to record the vehicle’s surrounding environment and play audible and visual alerts … In each of the previous steps, as the vehicle shifts from a disengaged status to an engaged status, the vehicle increases in power usage and when operating in battery conservation mode, the length that the vehicle remains at the higher power modes is reduced.” ¶ 93 and FIG. 9. Note: Step 912 analogizes to a third consumption mode which is activated in a case where an object having a possibility of harming a human or the vehicle has been detected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa to include the feature of: setting an imaging operation of the imager to a third power consumption mode having higher power consumption than a second power consumption mode in a case where an object having a possibility of harming a human or the vehicle has been detected based on a second image data generated in the second power consumption mode by the imager, as taught by Burns, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to reduce unnecessary power consumption by the controllers/devices of vehicle 101.” (Burns, ¶ 54.)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa and in view of Burns as applied to claim 3 — further in view of Ye.
As to claim 4, the combination of Ikegami, Mukasa and Burns fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the third power consumption mode is a mode of generating third image data having a resolution higher than the resolution of the second image data generated in the second power consumption mode.
Nevertheless, Ye teaches: wherein a third power consumption mode is a mode of generating third image data having a resolution higher than the resolution of the second image data generated in the second power consumption mode (“The operation modes of the image sensor include a first operation mode, a second operation mode, and a third operation mode, the second operation mode has lower power consumption than that of the first operation mode, the third operation mode has lower power consumption than that of the second operation mode … The first operation mode may also be referred to as a normal operation mode or a normal mode, and resolution of an image generated in the first operation mode is first image resolution. The second operation mode may also be referred to as a lower power mode, and resolution of an image generated in the second operation mode is second image resolution. The third operation mode may also be referred to as an ultra-low power mode, and resolution of an image generated in the third operation mode is third image resolution. The first image resolution>the second image resolution>the third image resolution.” ¶ 15.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami, Mukasa and Burns to include the feature of: wherein a third power consumption mode is a mode of generating third image data having a resolution higher than the resolution of the second image data generated in the second power consumption mode, as taught by Ye, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing further modality in terms of providing a third power consumption mode which provides a “highest” resolution, thereby providing maximum resolution when maximum power consumption is permitted while also allowing for first and second power consumption modes to be activated according to power consumption limitations.
As to claim 5, Ikegami discloses: recording image data in a recording section (“The memory unit 203 is composed of storage media such as a hard disk drive and semiconductor memory, and stores captured images input from the front camera 104, rear camera 105, right camera 106, and left camera 107.” ¶ 23.).
While Ikegami does not explicitly disclose recording the third image data in a recording section, the claim limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Namely, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to store Ye’s third image data because, as illustrated by at least Ikegami, it is well-known in the art that captured images are typically subsequently stored in a memory.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 6 — further in view of Kim (KR102021418B1; “Kim”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager such that the imaging direction when the side mirror housing is unfolded is to be maintained when the side mirror housing is folded.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: wherein a controller controls the imaging direction of the imager such that the imaging direction when the side mirror housing is unfolded is to be maintained when the side mirror housing is folded (“The present invention provides a side mirror system for an automobile characterized by further including a camera conversion drive unit that is located on the outer side of the side mirror and rotates in the opposite direction to the folding direction of the side mirror to maintain an angle for capturing a rear-side image of the automobile when the side mirror is folded.” ¶ 21.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa with the feature of: wherein a controller controls the imaging direction of the imager such that the imaging direction when the side mirror housing is unfolded is to be maintained when the side mirror housing is folded, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for expanding Ikegami’s functionality of controlling image direction by providing control which is not wholly dependent on a housing state of a side mirror.
As to claim 8, Ikegami discloses: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager based on drive information for driving the side mirror housing (“The imaging range of the right-side camera 106 is imaging range A when it is open and imaging range B when it is retracted, and the imaging range can be changed by rotating the right-side mirror 108.” ¶ 15; see also ¶ 16. The control unit 204 controls the right side mirror rotation unit 114 and the left side mirror rotation unit 115, which are composed of a motor and gears, to set the right side mirror 108 and the left side mirror 109 to predetermined positions.” ¶ 26.).
The combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager based on drive information for changing the imaging direction of the imager with respect to the side mirror housing.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager based on drive information for changing the imaging direction of the imager with respect to the side mirror housing (“The present invention provides a side mirror system for an automobile characterized by further including a camera conversion drive unit that is located on the outer side of the side mirror and rotates in the opposite direction to the folding direction of the side mirror to maintain an angle for capturing a rear-side image of the automobile when the side mirror is folded.” ¶ 21.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa with the feature of: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager based on drive information for changing the imaging direction of the imager with respect to the side mirror housing, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for expanding Ikegami’s functionality of controlling image direction by providing control which is not wholly dependent on a housing state of a side mirror.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 6 — further in view of Kim and in view of Bosscher et al. (US20170050563A1; “Bosscher”).
As to claim 9, the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager based on orientation information indicating orientation of the imager.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: controlling the imaging direction of the imager based on orientation information indicating orientation of the imager (“The camera (20) may further include a camera conversion drive unit (21) that rotates in the opposite direction to the rotation direction of the side mirror (10) to maintain an angle for capturing a rear-side image of the vehicle when the side mirror (10) rotates automatically.” ¶ 48 Note: A desired angle to maintain for a camera analogizes to orientation information indicating orientation of the imager.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa with the feature of: controlling the imaging direction of the imager based on orientation information indicating orientation of the imager, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for expanding Ikegami’s functionality of controlling image direction by providing control which is not wholly dependent on a housing state of a side mirror.
The combination of Ikegami, Mukasa and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller controls the imaging direction of the imager based on orientation information indicating orientation of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Bosscher teaches: controlling the imaging direction of the imager based on orientation information indicating orientation of the vehicle (“The processor establishes and stores a target position representative of the position of a target object relative to the vehicle body based on an object independent association and automatically adjusts the pan and tilt of the camera in response to the vehicle movement data such that the camera remains aimed at the target position.” ¶ 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami, Mukasa and Kim with the feature of: controlling the imaging direction of the imager based on orientation information indicating orientation of the vehicle, as taught by Bosscher, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “automatically track[ing] objects/locations in the environment with the gimbaled camera without requiring additional sensors.” (Bosscher, ¶ 5.)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 10 — further in view of Bosscher.
As to claim 11, the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller changes the imaging direction, being a direction of imaging performed by the imager, to the direction of the target object.
Nevertheless, Bosscher teaches: changes the imaging direction, being a direction of imaging performed by the imager, to the direction of the target object (“The processor establishes and stores a target position representative of the position of a target object relative to the vehicle body based on an object independent association and automatically adjusts the pan and tilt of the camera in response to the vehicle movement data such that the camera remains aimed at the target position.” ¶ 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa with the feature of: changes the imaging direction, being a direction of imaging performed by the imager, to the direction of the target object, as taught by Bosscher, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “automatically track[ing] objects/locations in the environment with the gimbaled camera without requiring additional sensors.” (Bosscher, ¶ 5.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 10 — further in view of Sakamoto (US20130083968A1; “Sakamoto”) and in view of Bosscher.
As to claim 12, the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa fails to explicitly disclose: imaging performed by an in-vehicle camera provided inside the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Sakamoto teaches: imaging performed by an in-vehicle camera provided inside the vehicle (“The present invention provides a vehicle periphery monitoring device which detects an object existing outside a vehicle on the basis of a captured image of an area in the periphery of the vehicle acquired by an in-vehicle camera.” ¶ 16 and FIG. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa with the feature of: imaging performed by an in-vehicle camera provided inside the vehicle, as taught by Sakamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “accurately identifying the classification of an object existing outside a vehicle from a captured image acquired by an in-vehicle camera.” (Sakamoto ¶ 98.)
The combination of Ikegami, Mukasa and Sakamoto fails to explicitly disclose: changes an imaging direction, being a direction of imaging performed by an in-vehicle camera provided inside the vehicle, to the direction of the target object.
Nevertheless, Bosscher teaches: changes the imaging direction, being a direction of imaging performed by the imager, to the direction of the target object (“The processor establishes and stores a target position representative of the position of a target object relative to the vehicle body based on an object independent association and automatically adjusts the pan and tilt of the camera in response to the vehicle movement data such that the camera remains aimed at the target position.” ¶ 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami, Mukasa and Sakamoto with the feature of: changes the imaging direction, being a direction of imaging performed by the imager, to the direction of the target object, as taught by Bosscher, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “automatically track[ing] objects/locations in the environment with the gimbaled camera without requiring additional sensors.” (Bosscher, ¶ 5.)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami in view of Mukasa as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Sakamoto.
As to claim 17, Ikegami discloses: wherein the imager includes: a first camera and a second camera, provided in the side mirror housing of the vehicle; a third camera and a fourth camera, provided in front of and behind the vehicle (“Vehicle 100 is equipped with a front camera 104 that captures images of the area in front of the vehicle 100, a rear camera 105 that captures images of the area behind the vehicle 100, a right-side camera 106 that captures images of the area to the right, and a left-side camera 107 that captures images of the area to the left.” ¶ 19.).
Ikegami fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the imager includes an in-vehicle camera provided in the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Sakamoto teaches: an imager including an in-vehicle camera provided in the vehicle (“The present invention provides a vehicle periphery monitoring device which detects an object existing outside a vehicle on the basis of a captured image of an area in the periphery of the vehicle acquired by an in-vehicle camera.” ¶ 16 and FIG. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ikegami and Mukasa with the feature of: an imager including an in-vehicle camera provided in the vehicle, as taught by Sakamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) utilizing in-vehicle cameras to monitor a vehicle’s surrounding is well-known in the art; and (2) this feature is useful for expanding Ikegami’s imager with another camera, thereby enabling more regions to be monitored and increasing redundancy.
CONCLUSION
This action is final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights